1.6 - will I be disappointed?

[rfn]

I've currently got a Mondeo ST TDCi - which does 0-60 in 8.5 seconds and typically gets 45mpg.

I do about 25 to 30k a year, but have wanted an MX-5 for ages (since I was 10, in fact, so over a decade!).

My current insurer won't touch a 1.8 MX-5 until I'm 21 but I had words today and the underwriters reckon they can insure me on a 1.6 for less than I'm paying for the Mondeo.

My question is: Will I be disppointed - is it "that" slow or will I forget about that once I get behind the wheel? Is it worth keeping hold of my Mondeo until Christmas and then insuring with another company on a 1.8?

[trophies]

You wont be dissapointed with a 1.6. I have got a subaru sti and a mx5 1.6. I never drive the subaru anymore. They are great to drive, you feel so involved it responds to everything you do!! Buy one!!

Lew

[Munter]

Which 1.6. Either way it's a great chassis that you'll enjoy. But the 1994 and later 1.6 in the MK1 is de-tuned to ~90bhp. Early ones 1989 - 1993 are ~115 bhp.

So for preferance get a early 1.6, but their insurance offer may be based on the later version....

Expect to get 30mpg as well for your calculations.

[merlinxlm]

30MPG ?
I am on my 3rd and i do not ever remember getting that sort of MPG ! But they will make your face hurt with the smile they give !! 1.6 is the best.

[uk_vette]

I would be tempted to keep the TDCi for a bit longer,

[speedtwelve]

I have a Mk1 1.6 (115bhp) which I drive daily. My other car is a 2.9l 215bhp Corrado VR6, as well as (until recently) an MR2 Turbo. Admittedly I get my 'performance' fix from the Corrado, but the Eunos is actually more 'fun' to drive, and is rewarding to hustle along making best use of what power there is. Use the gears and the powerband on the 1.6 and you'll be surprised at the progress you can make. Carrying speed through the corners is part of the fun, and at no point has any 'lack' of performance from the 1.6 been an issue for me. They love to rev.

[rfn]

Thanks for the replies.

I'm looking at mk2.5 1.6's (115bhp I believe?) which are of similar value to the Mondeo.

If I can get 30mpg (maybe more on longer trips) out of the MX I'd be quite happy - it'll cost me a little more than the Mondeo but great fun.

Edited by rfn on Thursday 31st July 15:25

[franv8]

You won't be disappointed with the MX. It's not a straight line machine but it's also not a total snail either. Most satisfying set of controls to use (particularly gearchange - which is handy, you have to use it lots!) and handling is as said in a previous post, satisfying and you can carry soem good speed through the bends.

My other car is significantly faster, and sticks to the road better, but doesn't boast quite such involved handling and lightweight feel of the '5.

MPG wise I did an experiment on my last tank, and got about 28.5 MPG gentle driving, normal driving (50% cross country blast, 50% MWay) gives about 26, but mine is a Mk1 and it's short gearing that does the most damage to economy I think.

[Combover]

rfn said:

If I can get 30mpg (maybe more on longer trips) out of the MX I'd be quite happy - it'll cost me a little more than the Mondeo but great fun.

I managed to get 33.3 mpg on a recent trip to Chelmsford and still made reasonable time. If you don't go mad, then they're reasonable on fuel. Put your foot down and they're bad for such a small engine.

Mine is a 1.8 and on Sunday I went for a blast around Cheshire, making decent progress but not going mad. I averaged 23mpg, which I was pleasntly suprised at.

It depends on how you drive it.

[Munter]

hora said:

I've had both the 1.6 and 1.8. I had to absolutely rev the nuts off the 1.6 whereas the 1.8 was easier to live with. Looking at all the figures theres not much in them on paper but (to me) there is a noticeable difference throughout all the gears etc.

Oh my swap offer on your SEAT still stands....

[princeperch]

Combover said:

rfn said:

If I can get 30mpg (maybe more on longer trips) out of the MX I'd be quite happy - it'll cost me a little more than the Mondeo but great fun.

I managed to get 33.3 mpg on a recent trip to Chelmsford and still made reasonable time. If you don't go mad, then they're reasonable on fuel. Put your foot down and they're bad for such a small engine.

Mine is a 1.8 and on Sunday I went for a blast around Cheshire, making decent progress but not going mad. I averaged 23mpg, which I was pleasntly suprised at.

It depends on how you drive it.

keeping her below 4000 rpm is the key.

I find if I remember this (which equates to just under 80 on the motorway) I can get 35 mpg.

[skinny]

as long as you avoid the 90bhp model you'll be fine. any other 1.6, as long as you use the revs it's a good little car - never gonna win a drag race but get the engine spinning up and keep it there through the corners and you'll see what these cars are all about.

for the record, with normal driving i get 35-37mpg from my '91 1.6 turbo but that's no short journeys, and a minimum of stop-start, which is what kills the economy

[anonymous-user]

I'm getting 39.7mpg from my 1992 1.6, so I don't know what you guys are doing to get below 30mpg???

[rfn]

Had a test drive this lunchtime.

Loved the car, plenty quick enough (didn't really feel slower than the Mondeo).

He couldn't give me a good p/ex price though, so going to do some research this afternoon and ring me back hopefully with a better offer .

[Avoneer]

In a word - no.

I've gone from a bike engined kit car to one and much prefer the 5.

This is my 1.6 115bhp version

Serious mods to the suspension and brakes, but engine & exhaust is standard apart from the air filter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDcMa9lpe88

Pat...

[rfn]

Cheers for all the replies.

Had another test drive today and I am sold on the car - if I wasn't 100% I wanted one before I certainly am now.

However, my car is worth not very much in the trade market, so unless I can secure a private sale I will be keeping the Mondeo for the forseeable future, and perhaps I might get a 1.8 after Christmas if things go my way!

[Murdoc]

My last two fill-ups on my 1.6 BBR Turbo have been 35mpg and 34mpg, but I have also got a regular 25-28mpg and 4.6mpg on track. Just depends how hard you mash the loud pedal.

[MX-5 Lazza]

Murdoc said:

4.6mpg on track

Really? If that's true then something must be wrong! Mine has only been as low as 10mpg even with heavy track use and that's with an MP62 supercharger giving 226bhp & 195lb/ft! On a BBR 4.6mpg would mean about 40 miles of track use before you have to head off to fill up again!

[Murdoc]

MX-5 Lazza said:

Murdoc said:

4.6mpg on track

Really? If that's true then something must be wrong! Mine has only been as low as 10mpg even with heavy track use and that's with an MP62 supercharger giving 226bhp & 195lb/ft! On a BBR 4.6mpg would mean about 40 miles of track use before you have to head off to fill up again!

That's just the track no driving to or from. Curborough as well which is heavy on braking and accelerating. Something is wrong, it has a BBR ECU I also suspect it may have been the 97 Ron when it was set to 98 ooops.

[MX-5 Lazza]

Murdoc said:

MX-5 Lazza said:

Murdoc said:

4.6mpg on track

Really? If that's true then something must be wrong! Mine has only been as low as 10mpg even with heavy track use and that's with an MP62 supercharger giving 226bhp & 195lb/ft! On a BBR 4.6mpg would mean about 40 miles of track use before you have to head off to fill up again!

That's just the track no driving to or from. Curborough as well which is heavy on braking and accelerating. Something is wrong, it has a BBR ECU I also suspect it may have been the 97 Ron when it was set to 98 ooops.

My 10mpg was at Abingdon. I filled up at Tesco 1/2 mile away, did almost exactly 100 miles on track then filled up at Tesco again before heading home. Worked out to just over 10mpg.
I'm sure the BBR ecu doesn't overfuel that much. Skinny - are you reading this?